From the Illusions of International Legitimacy to the Reality of the Legitimacy of the Strong

The United States has precedents in violating the sovereignty of nations and the immunity granted to presidents, as witnessed in Panama in 1989 with the arrest of President Noriega on drug trafficking charges, in Chile in 1973 against the leftist president Salvador Allende who was elected by the people, and in Libya when U.S. planes bombed the residence of Muammar Gaddafi during President Reagan's term. The U.S. also occupied Iraq and Afghanistan and bombed Iran in 2025, and most recently violated the sovereignty of Venezuela, arresting its president Maduro and his wife. Moreover, President Trump, along with the Secretaries of State and Defense, threatened during a press conference just hours after Maduro's arrest that Washington could replicate its actions in Venezuela in other countries like Colombia and Iran, hinting at Russia as well.

The infringement on state sovereignty did not stop at various justifications such as terrorism or drug trafficking; Washington openly demonstrated its contempt and lack of commitment to international law, legitimacy, and international organizations, as seen with UNESCO and the International Criminal Court, which faced sanctions from Washington in a historical precedent. The U.S. stood alone in the United Nations against all the world’s nations in defense of Israel and its violations of international legitimacy. 

This is not a new position for the current U.S. administration or its predecessors. In 2001, I participated in a political seminar at a hotel in Gaza, where Robert Malley, the U.S. representative in the peace process, also spoke. In his address, he claimed that Washington is the sole reference for the peace process, and when I asked him where international legitimacy and its resolutions stood, his public response was, (You should forget about international legitimacy)!

During the genocide and ethnic cleansing in Palestine, which Washington participated in with all its might, when it was suggested to Trump that his plans regarding the displacement of Palestinians from Gaza and the establishment of a council under his leadership to manage the sector contradicted international legitimacy, his response was that they represent U.S. legitimacy, meaning the legitimacy of the stronger.

We are thus faced with a systematic and ongoing operation from Washington and Tel Aviv to change the foundations and references that were agreed upon since the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 and subsequently with the formation of the United Nations in 1945, shifting from the legitimacy of rights and international law back to the (law of the jungle) or the legitimacy of the stronger. In reality, and far from the legal and moral discourse surrounding international legitimacy and international law, the relationships between states have traditionally operated based on the theory of reality founded on power and its balances and interests, while international law and legitimacy have served as a distraction for smaller states or have been applied as long as they do not contradict the interests of major powers.

Regarding the Palestinian issue, there is an ongoing effort to eliminate any international dimension of the Palestinian cause and to ignore all UN resolutions. The latest actions by Washington and Tel Aviv in this regard were attempts to undermine the work of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) and other international organizations operating in Palestine.

The world around us is changing, and most of these changes do not favor Arabs. We must understand what is happening, whether we like it or not. According to the laws of the universe, the strong and the wise are those who create history.

After all this history of arrogance towards the United Nations and international law, and President Trump's acknowledgment that no legitimacy surpasses U.S. legitimacy, what justification remains for the continued presence of the United Nations and other international organizations in the United States? And is there any credibility to Trump's discourse about peace or his pursuit of a Nobel Peace Prize?